Lawyer and rights activist, Mr Monday Ubani has faulted the
1999 Constitution for promoting unitary system of government. He
said the federal structure is defective because the constitution
was imposed by the military. The National Vice Chairman of the
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) spoke with LEKE SALAUDEEN on the
fight against corruption, local government autonomy, secession
threats and other issues.
How would you react to the public
perception that senior lawyers are frustrating the anti-graft war
of the Buhari administration?
Talking from point of law, it is the responsibility of a lawyer
to defend an accused person, no matter the nature of the crime. A
suspect has the right to hire a lawyer to defend him in court. That
is the norm across the globe. Here in Nigeria if an accused person
can’t afford to engage the services of a lawyer to defend, he has
the right to apply to the Legal Aid Council to provide him a lawyer
to defend him free of charge. A lawyer defending an accused in
court is not aiding and abetting crime.
What is wrong is if a senior lawyer engages in efforts to
frustrate the timely resolution of cases through frequent
adjournment or using technicalities, though it is allowed in law,
to prolong the trial. A judge is supposed to be in-charge of the
case before him. No case submission is also part of law. But no
amount of intimidation put up by a lawyer should stop the trial;
the judge should not succumb to the lawyer’s intimidation. The
practice whereby lawyers manipulate the court process in connivance
with the judge is unethical.
The courts have also been alleged of sabotaging the
anti-graft war by striking out some high profile corruption cases
despite overwhelming evidence. What is your view?
One thing we must understand is that criminal cases must be
proved beyond reasonable doubts. It is important that the
prosecution must present the facts of the case with ingredients of
crime committed by the accused. What convicts an accused person is
evidence, unassailable evidence. We must separate investigation
from prosecution. If you mess up at the investigation level, you
have lost the case. That is why specialisation has to come in; you
can’t lump investigation and prosecution together and ask the same
people to handle both. We have to develop human capacity on both
sides. It is necessary to get all ingredients of the crime at the
investigation level to get conviction of the accused in court. The
judge based his decision on the weight of evidence before him not
on public opinion. It is not right to say the judiciary is
complicit in the fight against corruption.
Let me also mention that we have not seen the end of those high
profile cases because the plaintiffs have the right of appeal up to
the Supreme Court that has the final say on any matter.
What do you think EFCC should do to win high profile
corruption cases?
The anti-graft agency needs to be more efficient. It should tidy
up its investigations and have all ingredients of offences in-tact
to secure conviction. The problem with the EFCC cases is
contradictory evidence given in court by its witnesses. When the
witnesses appear in court they give evidence that favour the
accused. Once the evidence of the witness in court contradicts his
statement, the court has no option than to strike out the case. I
think the EFCC has to shield the identity of its witnesses for
security reasons. It is done in the United States. The identity of
prosecution witnesses are protected for fear of being influenced or
attacked by the defendants and their agents. Then, adequate funding
of the anti-graft agencies is necessary. They must train and
retrain their personnel in crime investigation in order to develop
competence and capacity.
What are the implications of National Assembly’s
rejection of devolution of powers?
It portends great danger for democratic governance; it’s nothing
to be cheerful about. From 1966 to date, the country has not been
able to move to the level we want. Between 1960 and 1966, all
indices of development were manifested in all regions. Each region
was allowed to develop at its pace; there was competitiveness. The
regions had more functions than the centre and got higher
allocation from the Federation Account. There was development
across the country. Unlike the unitary system of governance we are
now practising. Everything is concentrated at the centre while the
federating units have no significant role to play.
What is creating tension in the country is inequitable
distribution of resources and this can only be addressed through
devolution of powers and regional/state autonomy. There must be
conscious efforts on the part of the elites to avoid things that
could lead to war. We can’t afford two wars in this country. Let us
resolve our problems on a round table; devolve some items on the
exclusive list to the states to allow for efficiency.
What is your reaction to financial autonomy for local
government proposed by the National Assembly in the Constitution
amendment?
It is a victory against injustice being perpetrated by the state
government against local government, particularly on the issue of
Joint Account. Though local government is not a federating unit but
the injustice in the system made some people to applaud the
National Assembly decision. Financial autonomy for local government
is welcome even though the recommendation still requires approval
of two-thirds of 36 States House of Assembly. The logic behind it
is to empower the third tier of government for service delivery at
the grass root.
The National Assembly also empowered the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) to take over the conduct of
local government polls. Is it right?
Legally speaking, it is erroneous to ask INEC to conduct local
government polls. At a time when we are talking of devolution of
powers, we cannot be adding more to powers of the central
government. What might have informed the decision of the National
Assembly is the failure of the state electoral commissions to be
neutral in handling local government polls. The ruling parties in
the states win overwhelmingly in every local government elections.
Despite that, it is wrong to ask INEC to take over local government
poll in a federal system.
What does restructuring mean to you?
The federal structure in Nigeria is defective. We are not
operating federal system of government but unitary system. The 1999
constitution imposed on us by the military is unitary. We need new
constitution that will be written by the representatives of the
Nigerian people. For us to have a proper federal system in place,
the centre must shed weight by devolving powers to the states. The
centralisation of power in Abuja is not good for the development of
this country.
Restructuring is to unbundle the Federal Government; transfer
some functions to the federating units. For instance, transfer some
items in exclusive list to states e.g. power supply. Each state
should be allowed to generate power and distribute to consumers
within its jurisdiction. This will improve power supply in the
country.
Let each state control its resources and pay tax to the Federal
Government. There will be competition among the states in terms of
development. The federating units are more assertive, not Abuja
alone. It will be a great mistake to ignore the agitations for
restructuring
Culled: Nation
Lawyer and rights activist, Mr Monday Ubani has faulted the
1999 Constitution for promoting unitary system of government. He
said the federal structure is defective because the constitution
was imposed by the military. The National Vice Chairman of the
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) spoke with LEKE SALAUDEEN on the
fight against corruption, local government autonomy, secession
threats and other issues.
How would you react to the public
perception that senior lawyers are frustrating the anti-graft war
of the Buhari administration?
Talking from point of law, it is the responsibility of a lawyer
to defend an accused person, no matter the nature of the crime. A
suspect has the right to hire a lawyer to defend him in court. That
is the norm across the globe. Here in Nigeria if an accused person
can’t afford to engage the services of a lawyer to defend, he has
the right to apply to the Legal Aid Council to provide him a lawyer
to defend him free of charge. A lawyer defending an accused in
court is not aiding and abetting crime.
What is wrong is if a senior lawyer engages in efforts to
frustrate the timely resolution of cases through frequent
adjournment or using technicalities, though it is allowed in law,
to prolong the trial. A judge is supposed to be in-charge of the
case before him. No case submission is also part of law. But no
amount of intimidation put up by a lawyer should stop the trial;
the judge should not succumb to the lawyer’s intimidation. The
practice whereby lawyers manipulate the court process in connivance
with the judge is unethical.
The courts have also been alleged of sabotaging the
anti-graft war by striking out some high profile corruption cases
despite overwhelming evidence. What is your view?
One thing we must understand is that criminal cases must be
proved beyond reasonable doubts. It is important that the
prosecution must present the facts of the case with ingredients of
crime committed by the accused. What convicts an accused person is
evidence, unassailable evidence. We must separate investigation
from prosecution. If you mess up at the investigation level, you
have lost the case. That is why specialisation has to come in; you
can’t lump investigation and prosecution together and ask the same
people to handle both. We have to develop human capacity on both
sides. It is necessary to get all ingredients of the crime at the
investigation level to get conviction of the accused in court. The
judge based his decision on the weight of evidence before him not
on public opinion. It is not right to say the judiciary is
complicit in the fight against corruption.
Let me also mention that we have not seen the end of those high
profile cases because the plaintiffs have the right of appeal up to
the Supreme Court that has the final say on any matter.
What do you think EFCC should do to win high profile
corruption cases?
The anti-graft agency needs to be more efficient. It should tidy
up its investigations and have all ingredients of offences in-tact
to secure conviction. The problem with the EFCC cases is
contradictory evidence given in court by its witnesses. When the
witnesses appear in court they give evidence that favour the
accused. Once the evidence of the witness in court contradicts his
statement, the court has no option than to strike out the case. I
think the EFCC has to shield the identity of its witnesses for
security reasons. It is done in the United States. The identity of
prosecution witnesses are protected for fear of being influenced or
attacked by the defendants and their agents. Then, adequate funding
of the anti-graft agencies is necessary. They must train and
retrain their personnel in crime investigation in order to develop
competence and capacity.
What are the implications of National Assembly’s
rejection of devolution of powers?
It portends great danger for democratic governance; it’s nothing
to be cheerful about. From 1966 to date, the country has not been
able to move to the level we want. Between 1960 and 1966, all
indices of development were manifested in all regions. Each region
was allowed to develop at its pace; there was competitiveness. The
regions had more functions than the centre and got higher
allocation from the Federation Account. There was development
across the country. Unlike the unitary system of governance we are
now practising. Everything is concentrated at the centre while the
federating units have no significant role to play.
What is creating tension in the country is inequitable
distribution of resources and this can only be addressed through
devolution of powers and regional/state autonomy. There must be
conscious efforts on the part of the elites to avoid things that
could lead to war. We can’t afford two wars in this country. Let us
resolve our problems on a round table; devolve some items on the
exclusive list to the states to allow for efficiency.
What is your reaction to financial autonomy for local
government proposed by the National Assembly in the Constitution
amendment?
It is a victory against injustice being perpetrated by the state
government against local government, particularly on the issue of
Joint Account. Though local government is not a federating unit but
the injustice in the system made some people to applaud the
National Assembly decision. Financial autonomy for local government
is welcome even though the recommendation still requires approval
of two-thirds of 36 States House of Assembly. The logic behind it
is to empower the third tier of government for service delivery at
the grass root.
The National Assembly also empowered the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) to take over the conduct of
local government polls. Is it right?
Legally speaking, it is erroneous to ask INEC to conduct local
government polls. At a time when we are talking of devolution of
powers, we cannot be adding more to powers of the central
government. What might have informed the decision of the National
Assembly is the failure of the state electoral commissions to be
neutral in handling local government polls. The ruling parties in
the states win overwhelmingly in every local government elections.
Despite that, it is wrong to ask INEC to take over local government
poll in a federal system.
What does restructuring mean to you?
The federal structure in Nigeria is defective. We are not
operating federal system of government but unitary system. The 1999
constitution imposed on us by the military is unitary. We need new
constitution that will be written by the representatives of the
Nigerian people. For us to have a proper federal system in place,
the centre must shed weight by devolving powers to the states. The
centralisation of power in Abuja is not good for the development of
this country.
Restructuring is to unbundle the Federal Government; transfer
some functions to the federating units. For instance, transfer some
items in exclusive list to states e.g. power supply. Each state
should be allowed to generate power and distribute to consumers
within its jurisdiction. This will improve power supply in the
country.
Let each state control its resources and pay tax to the Federal
Government. There will be competition among the states in terms of
development. The federating units are more assertive, not Abuja
alone. It will be a great mistake to ignore the agitations for
restructuring
Culled: Nation
Read more https://nairalaw.com/nigeria-needs-new-constitution-to-attain-true-federalism-ubani/